It's also possible they used balls that naturally deflated. The NFL rules seem to only stipulate the initial pressure.
This seems to be the whole of the text:
1. The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble grained, leather case (natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind. It shall have the form of a prolate spheroid and the size and weight shall be: long axis, 11 to 11 1/4 inches; long circumference, 28 to 28 1/2 inches; short circumference, 21 to 21 1/4 inches; weight, 14 to 15 ounces.
2. Each team will make 12 primary balls available for testing by the Referee two hours and 15 minutes prior to the starting time of the game to meet League requirements. The home team will also make 12 backup balls available for testing in all stadiums. In addition, the visitors, at their discretion, may bring 12 backup balls to be tested by the Referee for games held in outdoor stadiums. For all games, eight new footballs, sealed in a special box and shipped by the manufacturer to the Referee, will be opened in the officials' locker room two hours and 15 minutes prior to the starting time of the game. These balls are to be specially marked by the Referee and used exclusively for the kicking game.
3. It is the responsibility of the home team to furnish playable balls at all times by attendants from either side of the playing field.
It's hard to say what the obligations are to detect a non-playable ball after the game starts.
From Fark: "Per NFL regulations, we inflated the balls to 12.5 PSI prior to the game. We just happened to use air that was 150 F during the process."
That's actually clever. Good on them.
My point about being decent human beings doesn't really count in this specific case, I guess. But there is a line one can cross that moves from "Playing to win" to "I'm now a person I don't want to be".
In many of the case you bring up, Scott, being a decent human being is way more important than winning the game. Board games just aren't that important, outside of tournaments. Being a good person shouldn't be trumped by victory points.
Also, I love seeing players be real good sports people. For example, I just watched Nadal get stretched to 5 sets by someone a hundred or so points below him in the rankings in the opening rounds of a Grand Slam. It's a situation he's found himself in a few times in the last few years! He was on serve, a break up, and two points away from winning. Someone shouted out in the audience as he served, and he dumped it into the net. Tim Smyzeck, or however you spell his name, said "Give him first serve again." Nadal had another go at first serve. Tim then lost the match two points later.
That is very classy. Taking one of the greatest players of all time to 5 sets, and then helping him out? Very cool. Especially when Nadal is always pushing his luck with the rules of tennis, and only gets away with it because he's a big name.
I'll certainly remember that moment, even if the match itself doesn't have a big impact in the future of the tournament or their individual careers.
The real answer is that every circumstance is different.
Football has a long, storied history of people pushing the rules, trying dubious trick plays, etc... It's sort of in the spirit of the game, which is half athleticism and half tactics/strategy/coordination, to push it.
Glenn Scobey (Pop) Warner had returned to coach at the boarding school for Native Americans that he’d built into a football powerhouse beginning in 1899, largely through trick plays and deception. Over the years, he drew up end arounds, reverses, flea flickers and even one play that required deceptive jerseys. Warner had elasticized bands sewn into his players’ jerseys so that after taking the kickoff, they would huddle, hide the ball under a jersey and break in different directions, confounding the kicking team. Warner argued there was no prohibition against the play in the rules.
Meanwhile, Tennis is a direct athletic skill competition between two (or four) people. It's simple and pure, and has no such history. The wonderful moment you described above is entirely in the spirit of a "friendly duel" and in the spirit of what Tennis has always been seen to be.
What confuses me is how the regulation calls for a certain PSI. However, they tested the balls by weighing them. The regulation should be defined by mass, not by PSI.
I think a plain reading of the rule of inflation implies that the ball must remain inflated to the specified level.
The parenthetical stipulates the level of inflation. The level of inflation applies to the word "ball." The rules do not stipulate "at the beginning of the game" or any other time dependency attached to "ball," so we must use the most strict reading.
However, in practice, it doesn't seem reasonable to check the inflation level with any frequency.
I'm also not sure the inflation of the ball is cheating in the traditional sense, because it evenly affects both teams. You're playing with the same ball, after all.
I think a plain reading of the rule of inflation implies that the ball must remain inflated to the specified level.
So if the ball fails to remain inflated, whose job is it to complain?
I'm also not sure the inflation of the ball is cheating in the traditional sense, because it evenly affects both teams. You're playing with the same ball, after all.
You fail to understand the ridiculous complexity of football's rules, and I was remiss in not providing them in full.
The rules summarized:
...each team has their own balls for use when its offense is on the field.
Per NFL rules, each team has 12 balls they use on offense. The home team is also required to provide 12 more balls for backup, and visitors can bring 12 backup balls of their own if they so choose. In addition to those balls, Wilson, the company that manufactures NFL footballs, ships eight new balls directly to the officials for a game. Those are the kicking balls used by both teams, and they're kept under the control of the referees.
The real answer is that every circumstance is different.
Football has a long, storied history of people pushing the rules, trying dubious trick plays, etc... It's sort of in the spirit of the game, which is half athleticism and half tactics/strategy/coordination, to push it.
...
Meanwhile, Tennis is a direct athletic skill competition between two (or four) people. It's simple and pure, and has no such history. The wonderful moment you described above is entirely in the spirit of a "friendly duel" and in the spirit of what Tennis has always been seen to be.
That's true. Which is why, even before seeing the rules about ball pressure and the inspection (which to me seems woefully under-examined), I think the Patriots cheating in this way is pretty cool and funny. It's against the spirit of the game, but the spirit of the game in football IS deception.
Tennis has a long history of technique improving, not the rule set improving. The NFL players are getting bigger and better, but the change of the game over time comes from the changes in the rules, not that someone worked out how to put topspin on a backhand. Introducing the tiebreak or the hawkeye system changes some of the format, but the skills being tested remain the same.
Which is, I think, why I like it so much. Of all the sports I follow or watch regularly, it's the purest athletic game. I think snooker is probably more fair in terms of rewarding skill, but I like something more athletic, and with a little bit of variety due to weather and playing surface. Which is why Smyzcksksks gave Nadal the first serve back. The variable introduced wasn't one that was equal for both players.
The teams don't play with the same ball: each team brings its own set of balls to the game, and they play with the balls they brought while on offense, and then there's a referee-provided set of balls for kicking. So the Patriots quarterback had under-inflated balls, while the Colts QB had full-pressure ones.
Well, I suppose it's the same ball during an interception or fumble, but that's not an equitable situation.
So if the ball fails to remain inflated, whose job is it to complain?
Yeah, this is my primary point: the rule seems sort of difficult to enforce. It seems like it's trivially broken. Why even let teams bring their own balls?
My only problem with tennis is the pretty lax drug testing and some of the rules around it. It's pretty clear that some of the top players get away with failing tests because they have enough excuses on appeals. And until someone is handed down a ban, they can miss tournaments by pretending to have injuries until they clear things up. Or, like Serena Williams, just lock herself in a room until the drug testers leave without a sample. Or do some weird experimental pressure chamber shit like Djokovic to get more oxygen.
That is outside the game itself, but it's annoying to see obvious disparities in strength and fitness levels at the top level of the sport, and the only way to beat the suspicious players over 5 sets is due to them having an off day in terms of skill, as they just don't get tired.
Of course, this brings up an intereting point: if Rodgers (or anyone else, for that matter), thinks it's worth trying to sneak over or under inflated balls by the refs, then odds are the refs aren't routinely using pressure gauges during their inspections. They probably are just doing a cursory "squeeze test" on the balls, in which case it's entirely possible that balls that aren't at the proper psi could sneak through.
odds are the refs aren't routinely using pressure gauges during their inspections. They probably are just doing a cursory "squeeze test" on the balls, in which case it's entirely possible that balls that aren't at the proper psi could sneak through.
Just out of curiosity, since I don't sports, if the refs can't notice a measurable difference by squeezing the ball, then how much of a difference can it make to the players?
Not fully handegg related, but hilarity all around.
Lynch and Gronk playing the new Mortal Kombat with Coco.
"Lick the gun. Lick the gun. Lick the gun. Lick the gun. Lick the gun. Lick the gun. Lick the gun. Lick the gun. Lick the gun. Lick the gun. Lick the gun."
Just out of curiosity, since I don't sports, if the refs can't notice a measurable difference by squeezing the ball, then how much of a difference can it make to the players?
Almost certainly none of any consequence. That doesn't stop all the histrionics over the issue, however.
Should have ran it. Great game. Tough loss. Still love the Seahawks. Don't give a shit what the haters say. We'll be back next year.
I went go-karting instead of watching the superbowl. Races were $10 instead of the usual $23. The Patriots will return to the Super Bowl next year and I will return to go karts.
Yesss! No have to listen to Seahawk's fans all offseason. Also, nice low-class display there starting a fight after losing the game. They could have just lost with dignity, but nope. They gotta leave EVERYTHING on the field.
Comments
This seems to be the whole of the text: It's hard to say what the obligations are to detect a non-playable ball after the game starts.
My point about being decent human beings doesn't really count in this specific case, I guess. But there is a line one can cross that moves from "Playing to win" to "I'm now a person I don't want to be".
In many of the case you bring up, Scott, being a decent human being is way more important than winning the game. Board games just aren't that important, outside of tournaments. Being a good person shouldn't be trumped by victory points.
Also, I love seeing players be real good sports people. For example, I just watched Nadal get stretched to 5 sets by someone a hundred or so points below him in the rankings in the opening rounds of a Grand Slam. It's a situation he's found himself in a few times in the last few years! He was on serve, a break up, and two points away from winning. Someone shouted out in the audience as he served, and he dumped it into the net. Tim Smyzeck, or however you spell his name, said "Give him first serve again." Nadal had another go at first serve. Tim then lost the match two points later.
That is very classy. Taking one of the greatest players of all time to 5 sets, and then helping him out? Very cool. Especially when Nadal is always pushing his luck with the rules of tennis, and only gets away with it because he's a big name.
I'll certainly remember that moment, even if the match itself doesn't have a big impact in the future of the tournament or their individual careers.
Football has a long, storied history of people pushing the rules, trying dubious trick plays, etc... It's sort of in the spirit of the game, which is half athleticism and half tactics/strategy/coordination, to push it.
The Forward Pass was controversial when it was introduced.
Check out this gem: Meanwhile, Tennis is a direct athletic skill competition between two (or four) people. It's simple and pure, and has no such history. The wonderful moment you described above is entirely in the spirit of a "friendly duel" and in the spirit of what Tennis has always been seen to be.
I think a plain reading of the rule of inflation implies that the ball must remain inflated to the specified level.
The parenthetical stipulates the level of inflation. The level of inflation applies to the word "ball." The rules do not stipulate "at the beginning of the game" or any other time dependency attached to "ball," so we must use the most strict reading.
However, in practice, it doesn't seem reasonable to check the inflation level with any frequency.
I'm also not sure the inflation of the ball is cheating in the traditional sense, because it evenly affects both teams. You're playing with the same ball, after all.
Play to win the game.
The rules summarized:
Tennis has a long history of technique improving, not the rule set improving. The NFL players are getting bigger and better, but the change of the game over time comes from the changes in the rules, not that someone worked out how to put topspin on a backhand. Introducing the tiebreak or the hawkeye system changes some of the format, but the skills being tested remain the same.
Which is, I think, why I like it so much. Of all the sports I follow or watch regularly, it's the purest athletic game. I think snooker is probably more fair in terms of rewarding skill, but I like something more athletic, and with a little bit of variety due to weather and playing surface. Which is why Smyzcksksks gave Nadal the first serve back. The variable introduced wasn't one that was equal for both players.
Well, I suppose it's the same ball during an interception or fumble, but that's not an equitable situation. Yeah, this is my primary point: the rule seems sort of difficult to enforce. It seems like it's trivially broken. Why even let teams bring their own balls?
Tennis is indeed a near-perfect competition.
I don't give them the benefit of the doubt, though.
That is outside the game itself, but it's annoying to see obvious disparities in strength and fitness levels at the top level of the sport, and the only way to beat the suspicious players over 5 sets is due to them having an off day in terms of skill, as they just don't get tired.
Of course, this brings up an intereting point: if Rodgers (or anyone else, for that matter), thinks it's worth trying to sneak over or under inflated balls by the refs, then odds are the refs aren't routinely using pressure gauges during their inspections. They probably are just doing a cursory "squeeze test" on the balls, in which case it's entirely possible that balls that aren't at the proper psi could sneak through.
Lynch and Gronk playing the new Mortal Kombat with Coco.
That had me DYING.
That fight tho...
Seahakws: "They'll never expect us to throw, so if we throw everyone will be impressed with our daring and moxy to choose to do it!"
Patriots: "We know they like to run an unexpected pass play in this situation. Let's watch out for that."
Karma or something, I guess?